Today on Blogcritics
Home » New York Times Illogical, Superficial on Bolton

New York Times Illogical, Superficial on Bolton

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Re Senate Panel Is Set to Vote on Bolton Nomination Today, by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, May 12, 2005:

For goodness sake, how complicated can this be? Did John R. Bolton, Bush’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, misrepresent intelligence or didn’t he? Did he break rules or not?

This hopelessly neutered news account dares not say.

The article opens with the news that

John R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to “state his own reading of the intelligence” even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies.

So what? As the article points out in paragraph #3,

several former senior intelligence officials said the widely accepted view was that policy makers had a right to state their own views about intelligence matters, but that they also had an obligation to be accurate and to make explicit when they were stating personal opinions.

Nevertheless, the article states in paragraph #2 that

Democrats [sic] legislators opposed to the nomination … said they would cite [Mr. Bolton’s statement] as evidence that Mr. Bolton would adopt a loose standard for accuracy in making statements based on intelligence.

Is there any reasonable basis for such an assertion? Only in paragraph #15 does the Times timidly allow that there might be:

Under current practice, policy makers are free to state their own opinions, and have always insisted that intelligence agencies do not have standing to address policy issues. But in offering public assessments of intelligence information, policy makers have generally deferred to the agencies’ views, as spelled out through a strict interagency clearance progress [sic].

So … Bolton’s statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says he intends to disregard the “strict interagency clearance process”?!

If so, shouldn’t paragraph #1 say something like:

John R. Bolton has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a policy maker should maintain the right to “state his own reading of the intelligence” even when it differs from that of intelligence agencies. The statement defies a strict interagency clearance process requiring policy makers to defer to the agencies’ views when offering public assessments of intelligence information.

Is there any good reason why the Bush-friendly “policy makers have a right to state their own views” appears in paragraph #3, while the contrasting “public assessments of intelligence generally defer to the agencies’ views” — which is essential to make sense of the Democrats’ opposition described in paragraph #2 — is buried in #15?

And how are these contrasting positions logically consistent? Policy makers have a right to state their own views on intelligence — but not publicly??

How is #15 even internally consistent?

In offering public assessments of intelligence information, policy makers have generally deferred to the agencies’ views, as spelled out through a strict interagency clearance process.

Policy makers generally adhere to the “strict interagency clearance process,” but not always? It’s strict … but flexible??

The article reports that the Democrats circulated a summary outlining their arguments that

Mr. Bolton should be disqualified because of “four distinct patterns of conduct,” including his efforts to seek the removal of intelligence analysts who disagreed with him; his role in seeking “to stretch intelligence to fit his views”; his “abusive behavior and intolerance for different views” in his relations with colleagues and subordinates; and his “disingenuous or nonresponsive statements to the committee.”

“Four distinct patterns of conduct.” Is there as much as one specific item of conduct that is factually established and clearly wrong?

The Times does not disclose the answer. But it does offer the amazing news that “Republicans have prepared a rebuttal to each charge.”

From paragraph #16 (beginning “Among newly declassified documents being reviewed by the committee”) until the end of the article (paragraph #23), the article reports nothing more than internal conflicts between Bolton and intelligence agencies, without any information to indicate who if anyone is to blame.

The reporter describes newly declassified documents provided to the Times as if he scarcely understands English: “Many … reflect intense, angry debate between Mr. Bolton’s office and senior intelligence officials.” That could mean anything. Maybe Bolton’s a nut. Or maybe he’s a committed, hardworking patriot.

The bottom line is that “Mr. Bolton never delivered the testimony” to which the agencies objected. So where’s the beef?


Times-related items at urielw.com > The Times: News That’s Unfit

Powered by

About urielw

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “Is there any good reason why the Bush-friendly “policy makers have a right to state their own views” appears in paragraph #3, while the contrasting “public assessments of intelligence generally defer to the agencies’ views” — which is essential to make sense of the Democrats’ opposition described in paragraph #2 — is buried in #15?”

    My interpretation of this is that if John Bolton said (speaking as an official of the US Government), “Cuba has a chemical weapons program” that would be wrong, but he COULD say, “My own opinion is that Cuba has a chemical weapons program. However the US Government does not have a lick of evidence to support that view.”

    Now, hopefully the job of UN Representative would involve Mr. Bolton trying to speak to the US position on matters and not to his own opinion.

    I find the most troubling fact that Mr. Bolton did not follow the orders of his superiors in the past. If he couldn’t manage to get himself to follow his own administrations policies in the past, why put him in a place where he can really damage our countries goals?

  • Bennett

    Great dissection of the NYT article Uriel. You should email this to the editors. But they might offer you a job…

  • http://urielw.com Uriel

    Re Big Time Patriot’s “My own opinion is that Cuba has a chemical weapons program. However the US Government does not have a lick of evidence to support that view”:

    Paragraph 15 in fact does seem to indicate that this statement would NOT be acceptable.

    It’s worth noting how even #15 seems crafted to distract the reader from objections to Bolton. The first sentence I quoted from that paragraph —

    “Under current practice, policy makers are free to state their own opinions, and have always insisted that intelligence agencies do not have standing to address policy issues.”

    — is an irrelevant tautology. We are not talking about policy issues here but about intelligence matters. No one questions that policy issues are the domain of policy makers and not of intelligence agencies.

    But the next sentence appears to rule out the statement you propose (uttered publicly): “In offering public assessments of intelligence information, policy makers have generally deferred to the agencies’ views, as spelled out through a strict interagency clearance process.”

    Bennett — thank you kindly! However, after my Exchange with the Times Public Editor, I no longer attempt to communicate with those people.

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Mr. Uriel Wittenberg. My name is Mario G. Nitrini 111. I was Involved in The OJ Simpson Case, and am the Most Hated and Legally Feared Man in the OJ Simpson Case and Saga for REASONS. I have read the Article’s that you have written about Joseph Bosco. I met twice, Face-to-Face with Mr. Bosco back in 1997 and 1998. Mr. Bill Boyarsky also wrote an Article about me on June 23rd, 1995 in the L. A. Times with Regards to My Involvement in the OJ Simpson Case, and I was Also on David Bresnahan’s National Radio Show back in the Year 2001, Discussing some of My Involvement in the OJ Simpson Case.

    Mr. Joseph Bosco has DELIBERATLY LIED about me, in a general way, on His LongBow Papers Website, in One of His Posts about Bill Wasz, who was a MAJOR PLAYER in The OJ Simpson Case. Bill Wasz was MURDERED in March of 2005, just a couple of Months ago.. You have to Read His (Bosco’s) Garbage, Know some of the background Involved, to Believe it, or in this case, not to believe it.

    I am in a Discussion Group on “Smartfellows Press.” We have Uncovered Many Facts and NEW Evidence, that no One Knew about, concerning The OJ Simpson case and More. Mr. Joseph Bosco has called Us several Childish Names, to say the Least on His website. Back in November, 2004, I asked Mr. Bosco Some Really Direct questions regarding Him, and Different People Involved in The OJ Simpson Case, and He refused to answer or side swiped some of My Questions. I WONDER WHY????? I have Caught Mr. Bosco in, will say Descrepencies for Now, many Un-truths and HYPOCRISY with some of His statements in the OJ Simpson Case and in His Book, ” A Problem of Evidence.”

    Mr. Wittenberg, you are not the only one He trashes. If You have the time, go to “Smartfellows Press” here on the Internet, and read the MAY Dicussion Board. You can Also go to the March Discussion Board, where Mr. Bosco posted A Few Times, and see what a Jerk and Utter Moron He made of Himself, and I’m Being Kind.

    Thanks for Your Time Mr. Wittenberg,

    Sincerely,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • http://urielw.com Uriel

    Hi Mario,

    Thanks for your comments, which I read with interest. I know you are only one of many former associates and correspondents who have been disappointed by Mr. Bosco.

    Good luck,

    Uriel

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Good Luck to You also Uriel. Thanks for reading My comments.

    The OJ Simpson Case is Legally Heating up again and I am Legally Involved in the Case.

    I will continue to read Your Posts.

    Thanks again,

    Sincerely,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Hi Uriel:

    I would like to give You an Update.

    There have been some Legal happenings surrounding Certain People connected to The OJ Simpson Case that go Directly to what We on “Smartfellows Press” are Thriving for. Anthony Pellicano’s bid on Appeal was denied. The Circumstances behind the Raid on His Offic, His Federal Conviction, and His Prison Situation are Bizzare.

    Cyril Wecht’s Offices were Raided by The Feds. Who Knows what’s going on with That. There are others, BUT,

    I do believe have You have a Vested interest in This one, and it goes in Several Directons. Uriel, I have read that You were Acussed of some pretty Serious Situations by a Certain Person and Others. With the Death (Murder) of Bill Wasz, whom Joseph Bosco and His Attorney Buddy Larry Longo have claimed to be Bill Wasz’s Very close friends, somethings (Facts and Information) are going to Emerge that You Yourself will be able to Legally Vindicate Yourself with, with the Actual Words coming out of Certain People’s Mouths, which You Yourself will See are TOTAL Contradictions and Malicious and Deliberate Lies for Whatever “EVIL” Reasons. I Gaurentee It.

    Also, Bill Wasz claimed to be Andrew (The Max Factor Kid) Luster’s bodygaurd in a California State Prison. Bill Wasz said that Bill Pavelic, an attorney, and Two Mercenaries were involved in “Money Transfers” and Other Items to help Andrew Luster, when Luster was “on the Lamb.” Bill said that the Feds were conducting Grand Jury Hearings about this Matter. Keep Your Eyes on this situation for Sure.

    There is a lot more going on Concerning Certain People connected to The OJ Simpson Case. Uriel, Watch the News.

    Thanks,

    Sincerely,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Hi Uriel.

    I Don’t Know if You have been Following IAGO Lately, but Joseph Bosco has Posted a few times there in the last Couple of Days.

    Unknown to Mr. Bosco, Jasper Garrison had a Copy of Bill Wasz’s Book “We Only Kill Our Friends.” In a Passage from the Book, Bill says that Joseph Bosco WAS a “Blocker” in a BLACK TAR HEROIN (1 Ounce) Smuggling Episode with Bill in a California State Prison while visiting Bill where Bill Was doing Time for Crimes that He had Committed. Now Understand this Uriel, Joseph Bosco has said MANY Times that Bill Wasz Checked Out 100% with His Information, and Bill Wasz was, According to Mr. Bosco, one of Bosco’s Best Friends and More.

    Well NOW, OJ Simpson Case Crime Writer Joseph Bosco is Claiming that Bill Wasz LIED about this BLACK TAR HEROIN Smuggling Episode, and Also is claiming that Bill Wasz Lied about Other Situations, and, I would venture to say is Trying to Cover His Butt.

    I Post this because I Know Joseph Bosco has Made Very Bad statements about You. Uriel, there is A LOT to this Bill Wasz Situation with OJ Simpson Case People Connections like Larry Longo-Suge Knight-Rampart-Notorious B.I.G.-and Bill Wasz.

    Keep Watching Uriel, it’s Going to get REAL Interesting SOON.

    Smartfellows Press Home Page

    Thanks,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Hi Uriel,

    Per Your Request, You Better Believe you will be one of the FIRST one’s to Know, FOR SURE.

    Uriel, due to a Blindsided-Verbal-Agreement-Lying Attack on Me Purpotrated by Jasper Garrison of Smartfellows Press (IAGO), I will NOT be able to Post on IAGO anymore because Mr. Garrison has said He will “Delete” ANY Post that I make there from Now On. He has Deleted Several of My comments that I made on IAGO over the Last few days. There are reasons, and just to Defend Myself Briefly, I Posted the TRUTH about several Situations Concerning Bill Wasz, His Ex-Wife Stephanie, Bill Wasz’s Daughter, Larry Longo, Suge Knight, Joseph Bosco and More. Jasper Garrison Deleted. You can see for Yourself on Smartfellows Press. Mr. Garrison LIED also concerning Me, Detective Ronald Y. Ito and More People, and More Situations. There’s More, but that’s for another Time.

    Another Item that Mr. Garrison did NOT want to Completely come Out were the LIES of Allan Park and Kato Kaelin in The OJ Simpson Cases (Criminal and Civil), Hearings, and Grand Jury. He Bascially wanted Me to SHUT-UP about those Two (Kaelin and Park) because of His Animations and other Situations. Jasper Garrison Says He Only seeks the Truth?????–IT SEEMS Only to Me Now when it Benefits Him and His Mark Fuhrman and 4 Others Being in a Conspiracy to Kill Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson.

    The BIG ITEM is This. Mr Garrison Tried so Hard to Convince Me that Rocky Bateman (OJ Simpson’s Regular Limousine Driver from approximately August of 1993 to June of 1994 and My Ex-in-law) was Somehow Connected to Mark Fuhrman. NO WAY, IMPOSSIBLE. Rocky Bateman WAS/and Still IS 100% Pro-OJ Simpson, PERIOD. Mr. Garrison “Drove Me BATTY” trying to convince Me of this Scenario

    I have a NEW system in Legal Internet Posting. It’s better than the Last.

    Uriel, You cannot Believe who has been Contacting Me over the Last week and a half. I KNEW for a while that there were Major Personalities Reading IAGO, but You Wouldn’t believe who has Contacted Me. This is for some of those People:
    If You have an Agreement You want to make with Me, Put it in Writing Via The Internet or in a Letter, but IN WRITING. NOT ON THE TELEPHONE.

    I will keep You Updated Uriel,

    Thanks,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    This is for Dmitry Kuzin;

    Dmitry, I received Your E-Mail. It’s OK to E-mail Me, but I “DO NOT” E-mail ANYONE. I have laid that Out Before Why.

    I Also will not use the Phone to Discuss ANYTHING Connectd to The OJ Simpson Case.

    Dmitry, in a Picture on Joseph Bosco’s Website, he has a Picture of You, Bill Wasz and Larry Longo on Motorcycles. Since You have asked me to have contact with You, there IS a Legal Conflict of Interest Regarding Larry Longo, BIG TIME. I Believe You have been Reading IAGO since you Mentioned Bill Wasz in the E-mail You sent to Me.

    Dmitry, You made a Post on Joseph Bosco’s Website a Few Months ago and claimed with words to the Effect that You were Almost Killed (Murdered) in some kind of Fashion, and David Bresnahan in an Article says “Someone made an attempt on the life of the producer of that film (Abu Graib), Dmitry Kuzin a few weeks ago. He is recovering, but is very scared because of what has happened to Wasz.” Dmitry, How did David Bresnahan KNOW that You were almost Killed???? and I have it, that someone tried to Run You Off the Road while You were driving Your Motorcycle???? Is that Right?????

    Dmitry, I hope You see this Post. I have some VERY Serious Legal questions to ask you about a Bill Wasz-Larry Longo-Suge Knight-OJ Simpson Case Connection.

    Dmitry, DON’T worry about Your English, It’s NOT a Problem For Me, Thanks,

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Uriel and Eric,

    I Hope You both Don’t mind Me Posting on this Thread. Uriel, this is VERY Serious Stuff.

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Hi Uriel, Here’s another Update and I did Receive Your E-Mails.

    I have Joined another Forum talking about The OJ Simpson Case and MORE. It’s at Jebusville.com. The People are “Different,” Kind of Like Me, but they are Very Intelligent and ask VERY SMART Questions.

    I have Started to Let the Blogeshpere in China Know about Joseph Bosco and More. I am Telling the Truth and Pure Truthful Facts.

    Mr Bosco has been in Los Angeles this Week and I received a Message on My Telephone answering Machine a few days ago from a person giving Me Joseph Bosco’s (310) Phone Numbers while Bosco is in Los Angeles. Mr. Bosco just seems to NEED to “TALK”(SPIN) to Me. I did give Him an Opportunity to talk to Me but He would NOT follow My Legal Guidelines I sat Down for Him. Before I was 86ed from Smartfellows Press, Mr Bosco Posted to Me on Smartfellows Press saying that He Posted on His LongBow Papers Website about coming to Los Angeles “Primarily” to talk to Me (Mario). Gee,……….

    I will Keep You Updated Uriel.

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Mario G. Nitrini 111

    Hi Uriel, Another Update.

    I have been Blogging in The China Blogesphere telling the ABSOLUTE Truth About Joseph Bosco, His OJ Simpson Case Statements and More.

    There is Definitly a REAL STRONG RESISITANCE concerning Truth about Joseph Bosco. Certain Moderators of Certain Websites have been Deleting the Truth about I Say on Their Webiste’s concerning Joseph Bosco. AMAZING!!!!!

    There have been some that have Left My statements on their Website’s and want to HEAR the Truth. Good for Them!!!!!!!

    Also, I have been getting some Correspondence from Certain Individuals. Some DO NOT like what I say at ALL. They can’t HANDLE the Truth. So what else is NEW.

    Talk to You later Uriel

    Mario G. Nitrini 111

  • Kyle Berglund

    Wow. I mean, just, wow.